notes on interesting digital ephemera

February 28, 2005

What struck me, other than the scale of the program, is training and support per student works out to about $80 per machine per year. That is about a third of what our local high school spends on Windows support (which is still somewhat broken after spending the money).

One wonders how programs like this will be viewed a few years down the road. I have a suspicion that it is a good thing, but I don't know the field.

One page is much longer than the other (and it is very incomplete - just the highest level skimming of the evidence). In fact there is zero evidence to support the other view.

What is disturbing is the ID/creationist view is being taught in classrooms and the teaching of evolution - something deep and fundamental if the next generation is going to compete - has been shrinking over the past few years.

at some level fundamentalists are the same - christian, islamic, ... whatever

Paul Gross has penned an editorial that has been appearing around the country:

Strong evidence for evolution, none for creationist alternatives

By Paul R. Gross

February 28, 2005

Around the country, the debate over evolution in public schools is again incendiary.

The new critics of evolution - including those in Cecil County - promote alternative "theories" claimed to deserve the same study in science classes as the evidence-based modern science of evolution. However, the main current competitor, "intelligent design theory," is far from suitable for such a purpose. Cecil County and others should examine the facts before giving intelligent design and similar creationisms time in science class.

Any reading of the literature of intelligent design makes it immediately clear that it is just an argument from incredulity, not a theory in any ordinary sense. The claim is that Darwinian processes cannot account for the history and diversity of life because life shows evidence of complex design, and that Darwinian processes could not produce design without "intelligent" input. Ergo, presumably, there must be, or must have been, an intelligent designing agent. Never mind who. For this claim there is, so far, zero evidence.

By contrast, the evidence for evolution is overwhelming. Modern biology, not just "Darwinian natural selection," is a vast body of interwoven observation, experiment and theory, the product of tens of thousands of scientists active over 150 years. Their product is, precisely, evidence: that the design in living things arises in the course of natural processes.

The description of those processes is not just a theory. There are hundreds of cases of evolutionary change observed in progress and dozens of observed speciations, with mechanisms perfectly clear. That the results of such changes over eons of time - at least 3.5 billion years - include complex molecular machinery is no surprise, except to those trying to manufacture belief in a world conspiracy of scientists against faith, or to scientific illiterates.

There is no scientific evidence for intelligent agency behind biological design. But evidence for the making of designs by natural processes is as strong as any scientific evidence we have - in any field of science.

Advocates of intelligent design, such as the Discovery Institute in Seattle, have been selling the same specious anti-evolution argument as though it were valid science for more than a decade. They have convinced not a single widely recognized evolutionary biologist. Yet they prate of "scientists" agreeing with them.

Only the naive, or those indifferent to the rules of serious scientific inquiry, are convinced. Children ought not to be misled about what is good science and what is not.

Paul R. Gross is university professor of life sciences emeritus at the University of Virginia and author of a forthcoming Thomas B. Fordham Foundation report on science standards in the states.

The state of science literacy in the US is something to worry about. And our leaders are among the illiterate.

The profit margins are still remarkable - something like 45% of revenus. The executives at Viacom probably feel this sort of margin has been established by god. It is very similar to the chats we had with the record majors in the late 90s .. sky high margins and that was justified by the "value" provided to the customers.

I'm sure much of satellite radio's allure is related to programming. Most of commercial radio is a wasteland and the big conglomerates, out of greed and a misunderstanding of their consumers, merely cloned stations to cut costs.

Most of the players must be tooling podcasting strategies - even if it means discounting the possibility of a service. Barriers to entry and transmission costs are small compared to satellite or fm radio, so there should be real choice for consumers. I'm betting the early winning players will be satellite radio (it would be easy for them to offer podcasts of their shows on the net) and NPR. Apple probably has some interesting ideas, but I can't imagine direct programming from them - one can imagine updates to iTunes to make this very easy - it will be a way for them to extend their lock on the market (aacplus seems make for the purpose with regular aac for higher quality when necessary). The big commercial radio networks are probably in denial - they probably can't figure out how to get 45% margins from the business.

Putting together interesting radio programs takes real effort and some talent. There may be some long tail effect, but the middle part of the tail is going to be much more interesting.

In the meantime, strap in for an interesting ride as Wall Street realizes PORS networks have grossly inflated valuations.

David Podvin has penned a letter that asks the reader to imagine a different sort of America ...

Imagine the kind of nation America would be if the people who love fought as hard for their beliefs as those who hate. Allow yourself to dream of how much good would be accomplished if the rational citizens were as adamant as the superstitious ones, and how much bad would be avoided.

Imagine if living humans were considered to be at least as important as frozen embryos. This approach would permit research to cure many dread diseases, thereby alleviating great suffering. And the best part is that we wouldn't have to hurt the embryos even one little bit, because they are already dead. Those Americans who are alive would enjoy an improved quality of life, while those who are dead would maintain a constant quality of death. This is known as "win-win".

Imagine if family values meant loving your relatives instead of hating homosexuals. Fundamentalist ministers who were a little less obsessed with intra-gender affection would finally have time to rail against real abominations, like spousal abuse. One out of every four American women has been beaten by her husband, so here's a new family value worthy of consideration: Don't hit Mom. Honoring this avant-garde principle would fortify our collective moral fabric infinitely more than discharging gays from the military.

Imagine if the numerous parts of the New Testament where Jesus commands his adherents to aid the poor were not written in ink that is illegible to right wingers. According to Christ, poverty isn't a manifestation of vice any more than affluence is an affirmation of virtue. When religious conservatives start emulating their Holy Savior Who Reigns In Heaven instead of their Fat Junkie Who Lies On Radio, America will become a better place.

Imagine if we aspired not to be the most powerful country but the most humane. Think of how people in other lands would react if instead of telling them what to do, we asked what we could do. Viewed from a purely self-serving standpoint, our country would garner more influence by saying, "We'd like to help" than by screaming, "Surrender or die!" Of course, it's much harder to plunder when you are not kicking ass, but at the risk of sounding unpatriotic, I have come to the conclusion that plundering may be overrated.

Imagine if our concept of heroism involved sparing lives rather than taking them. Society would honor those who did not drop napalm on children, meaning that the vast majority of citizens would get to wear really cool medals, and the others would have a lot of explaining to do.

Imagine if torturing people by having them raped were once again considered a greater moral trespass than committing adultery, and that restoring honor and dignity to the Oval Office did not involve authorizing the mutilation of suspects who had never even received a trial. Would the United States really be more vulnerable if our leaders were less barbaric?

Imagine if our energy policy was formulated by patriotic Americans instead of multinational profiteers. The United States would be self-sufficient, the environment would be cleaner, and oil-producing countries would be much, much safer.

Imagine if democracy meant everyone got to have their vote counted, even if they didn't vote Republican. Despite the protestations of corporate pundits, real democracy is considerably better than sham democracy, although the latter does provide lucrative executive positions for those who are otherwise unemployable.

Imagine if the American people paid as much attention to Washington politics as they do to Hollywood gossip, which would render demagogues incapable of manipulating clueless voters into surrendering their liberty and wealth.

Imagine if journalism consisted of reporting unembellished facts instead of parroting establishment lies. If the truth really does set you free, American reporters currently reside in the world's most opulent dungeon. Only when journalists are allowed to communicate honestly with the public will the phrase "freedom of the press" finally become more than inadvertent satire.

Imagine if our judiciary had a sense of proportionality, so that those who snort cocaine into their noses received less prison time than those who dump industrial sewage into the water supply. It would also be worthwhile to rewrite the law so that stealing a loaf of bread to feed your family carries a smaller criminal penalty than murdering two thousand people by selling defective products. Society will be less dangerous when membership in the Chamber of Commerce is no longer a license to kill.

Imagine if we discovered saner reasons to stigmatize people than immutable characteristics such as gender or ethnicity. Here's one now...cruelty. What if being cruel suddenly became socially unacceptable? Would that necessarily negate the ethos on which our society is based? And if so, isn't it a sacrifice worth making?

Imagine if sex were not considered to be filthy. That sea change would enable adults to discuss the topic without giggling, smirking, and otherwise behaving like mental defectives. The Puritans amongst us have succeeded in turning a perfectly natural desire into something sleazy. Our deeply repressed culture always produces bull markets in substance abuse and violent crime because self-loathing people either implode or explode. If we want to have a healthier nation, we can start by no longer teaching little kids that their bodies are a source of shame.

Imagine if creative people were not vilified for refusing to honor the arbitrary standards of uncreative people. How much additional great art and music and literature and cinema would there be if those who are talented could express their skills without being attacked as subversive? Of equal importance, how much less lousy art and music and literature and cinema would there be if conformity were not encouraged more than originality?

Imagine if we spent a little less time congratulating ourselves for being generous and a little more time actually being generous. There is plenty of food in this country to feed the entire globe - a comprehensive nutritional program combined with a responsible contraceptive effort could end world hunger once and for all. That would be a legacy for the ages: The Generation That Ended Starvation. And it can happen any time we choose, just as soon as we find the will.

There is more to life than idealism, but life is not worth living without it. Hopefully, one day most Americans will accept that being kind is not the same as being weak, and that caring about others is virtuous rather than contemptible, and that a person's intrinsic worth is unrelated to his or her net worth. Until that time, the idealists will be outnumbered by the cynics who are now busy remaking the United States in their own immoral image.

A group of astronomers has investigated three red supergiants (pdf - only recommended if you have at least an undergrad degree in physics or astronomy) and has found their diameters to be about 14 AU - larger than any other star. For reference Saturn's mean distance from the Sun is about 9.5 AU, so this is non-trivial hugeness.

Another factoid is these stars are about 25 solar masses - this gives them about 7.4 x 10-9 the density of the Sun - or about 12.6 nanograms per cubic centimeter - about 100,000 times less dense than air at sea level.

The most important feature of the research is the temperature of red supergiants has been revised upwards by about ten percent bringing agreement to the standard evolutionary models and the position of stars of the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram.

hy·poc·ri·sy (hĭ-pŏk'rĭ-sē) n., pl. -sies.
1. The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness.
2. An act or instance of such falseness.

[Middle English ipocrisie, from Old French, from Late Latin hypocrisis, play-acting, pretense, from Greek hupokrisis, from hupokrīnesthai, to play a part, pretend : hupo-, hypo- + krīnesthai, to explain, middle voice of krīnein, to decide, judge.]